Ahead of the launch of the government's social mobility strategy this week, David Willetts, the universities minister, announced that "feminism has trumped egalitarianism". Not, as one might think, a long-lost example of clumsy sloganeering, but Willetts's belief that middle-class women getting ahead has robbed working-class men of their rightful life chances.

"It is not that I am against feminism, it's just that it is probably the single biggest factor." And Willetts's cabinet nickname is "two brains" – could we demand a recount?

Even those of us struggling through life with just one brain could rustle up a few counter-arguments – poor education, the welfare trap, not to mention the decline over decades of manufacturing. For one example, the way my own father trained as a mechanical engineer, watched that industry atrophy and, employment-wise, had to "busk it" from there. One wonders why a Conservative minister such as Willetts prefers not to cite such factors. It's also intriguing how he seems to define "egalitarianism" as a male concept in direct competition with feminism.

Getting back to those bloody women waltzing in and nicking all the guys' breaks, what we have here is a big social lie given a garnish of truth. It is true that females from better-off families benefited from emerging opportunities in education and the workplace. It is also true that working-class males have increasingly struggled, and social mobility has stagnated for the past 40 years.

Where it gets surreal is the way Willetts gives the impression of an automatic standoff. Middle-Class Women versus Working-Class Men. A socio-gender boxing match. "You snobby cow, you've taken my life chances."

According to Willetts, the middle-class women who've caused all the trouble won't even shag the working-class men. How tight is that – they took their life chances and then they won't put out? It's what Willetts calls "assortative mating". "That well-educated women marry well-educated men… You suddenly had two-earner couples, both of whom were well educated, compared with often workless households, where no one was educated. So I do personally think that the feminist revolution, in its first-round effects, was probably the key factor."

Hmm. What Willetts seems to be describing is the routine practice of people tending to couple up with individuals from their own worlds. It's called Having Something In Common. It does not adequately explain how middle-class women stole working-class men's life chances. Nor does it help track the whereabouts of other important groups, strangely absent from this discussion.

Do working-class women have no place in this debate – have they spent the past four decades just keeping their feckless non-educated men company? Then, of course, there are middle-class men, or is it that, in Willetts's mind, their social standing is not even up for discussion. It is a "given" that middle-class men remain dominant. Indeed, it is only after middle-class men get "first dibs" on what they want that middle-class women and working-class men can roll up their sleeves and fight each other for the leftovers.

In this way you could argue that middle-class women versus working-class men is a red herring. Middle-class men have been taking the lion's share of everyone's life chances. Then again, you couldn't really say that because social mobility is too complicated.

What seems ludicrous is styling middle-class women as the nemeses of working-class men. There is no uppity oestrogen "bunging up" the system, stopping the blue-collar testosterone getting through.

There have never been hordes of middle-class women pushing working-class men out of the way to lunge at their jobs. Above all, feminism and egalitarianism have never been either/or concepts, and it's a bit frightening that a supposedly clever man suggests otherwise.

Now this is a list you just can't resist

How lame of David Cameron to label Ed Balls "the most annoying person in British politics" at PMQs. Often, parliamentary banter, so esteemed in Westminster, doesn't hit the spot in the real world. Outsiders don't understand why grown-ups are engaged in the verbal equivalent of pulling pigtails. "My honourable friend is annoying." "No, my honourable friend is annoying, nerrr!" There are people in pubs across the land coming out with better quips than that after only a couple of lagers.

Happily, however, this kind of thing also encourages people like myself to ponder, pointlessly, childishly, but nevertheless enjoyably, who would make it on to our own list of "most annoying people in British politics". Top of mine, would be Nick Clegg, loathed chez Ellen ever since that first hammy repetitive televised election debate ("old-style politics … political point-scoring"). Cleggmania, my derrière.

Next up, Boris Johnson, for once referring to black children as "piccaninnies" (not so much annoying, as, ahem, racist, but Boris is such a card isn't he?). Hazel Blears just came to mind for no other reason than that she is occasionally reminiscent of Squirrel Nutkin in a skirt suit. To get off my "most annoying" list, Simon Hughes must stop showing up on television interviews doing his hand-wringing "coalition martyr" routine.

I could go on – so little space, so many who deserve recognition for their services to annoyingness. Perhaps every single MP in Britain would make it on to someone's list somewhere.

Perhaps that explains it – the heady rush of reductionism. Egotistical politicos reduced to their true selves – scabby-kneed nerds terrified of getting picked last for games. So much power and influence, but they cannot stop us grading them in an eternal popularity contest. Perhaps best, then, not to actively encourage it. Mr Cameron, what have you done?

A poignant TV moment? Better send for Adele

I like Adele, and it is not her fault that her music is being fast tracked into muzak. Turn on the television, and it's evident that "Someone Like You" has achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the "go to" soundtrack for PDMs (poignant documentary moments).

It is now passé for a sick dog to be examined by a pessimistic vet to the strains of Snow Patrol's "Chasing Cars" (previously the "big daddy" of PDMs). Does hearing a song so much, so out of context, eventually leach it of all art and beauty? I'm afraid so. It doesn't even make the dogs feel any better.

Deceptively throwaway stuff such as this can be powerful indicators of sea changes in music tastes. Likewise, the X Factor auditions – a while back, everyone decided en masse to stop wailing Madonna or Whitney songs, and instead screech Beyoncé and Lady Gaga numbers. It was almost terrifying in its suddenness, universality, and undercurrents of mass mind control. Expect endless foghorn "homages" to Adele in auditions this year.

Sorry Adele, but, if you're any good, it's "the law" that you must suffer Cultural Saturation Overload. Let's hope for your sake the Brit School ran a course in it.